```Date: Dec 5, 2012 1:11 AM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when<br> computing the other two regressions

On Dec 4, 9:18 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:> The average slope ?Auq? of the regression c on (u,u^2)is the most> stable of our five new average slopes; in particular:>> i) for method N and dicodon set 1, we get a perfect S/C split of the> ?m?s? of the CI?s EVEN WHEN we plot the regressions of Auq on ALL> singleton lengths for S and for C of all methods/sets/subsets,  AS> WELL AS when we do the same using the 12 length intervals instead of> all available singleton lengths.>> ii) for method N and dicodon set 2, we get an almost perfect S/C split> of the ?m?s? of the CI?s EVEN WHEN we plot the regressions of Auq on> ALL singleton lengths for S and for C of all methods/sets/subsets,  AS> WELL AS when we do the same using the 12 length intervals instead of> all available singleton lengths.>> And this ?stability? of Aug, coupled with my abysmal ignorance and> naivete, leads me to ask the following question.>> When I user Ivor Welch?s module to compute the three new regessions> Ruq, Rub, and Ruqb per singleton length interval, his module allows me> to specify a constant which I now default to ?1?.>> So when I compute the regressions Rub and Ruq for a given singleton> length L, would any possible benefit accrue from using the value of> Auq for L (and, of course, the corresponding method, set, subset, and> fold)?>> Or is this an entirely illegitimate way to use Auq as a ?constant?> when computing Rub and Rubq?>> Thanks as always for considering this question.What is the constant supposed to do or be?How does it fit into the regression equation?
```